The appellant, Nicholas Beauvais, appealed his convictions for possessing, accessing, and making child pornography available.
He argued that the trial judge failed to properly consider alternative inferences to his guilt, specifically that the child pornography was downloaded by another resident or by a third-party attacker via a virus.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by dismissing these alternative inferences as "pure speculation" without adequately assessing the evidence, including conflicting testimony regarding laptop access and expert evidence about the virus's capabilities.
The court also found the trial judge attached undue weight to the "Moose" username and recycle bin evidence.
The appeal was allowed, convictions set aside, and a new trial ordered.
